Anura, Rafinesque, 1815

Venczel, Márton & Csiki, andZOLTÁN, 2003, New frogs from the latest Cretaceous of Hateg Basin, Romania., Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 48 (4), pp. 609-616 : 614-615

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.13394058
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13394109
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/436E87E6-BB0A-FFFE-FCA8-08F0FDA3F8AE
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Anura
status

Treatment

Anura indet.

Material.— FGGUB v.435 ( Fig. 5A View Fig ), v. 436, v.437, v. 460, partial maxillae; FGGUB v. 453 ( Fig. 6A View Fig ), v. 454 ( Fig. 6B View Fig ) partial atlases; FGGUB v. 438 ( Fig. 1C View Fig ), v. 456–459, partial sacral vertebrae; FGGUB v. 440 ( Fig. 6D View Fig ), v. 441 ( Fig. 6C View Fig ), partial urostyles; FGGUB v. 445 ( Fig. 6G View Fig ), v. 406–408, partial humeri.

Description.—A partial left maxilla, FGGUB v. 435 ( Fig. 5A View Fig ), preserves a low postorbital facial part, its orbital margin being nearly parallel with the horizontal lamina. The latter has a convex lingual margin, ended posteriorly in a small pterygoidprocess. The tooth row extends posterior to the ptery − goidal process. The labial surface is smooth.

Atlas ( Fig. 6A, B View Fig ).—Only fragmentary centra were recovered. The centrum is dorsoventrally flattened. The anterior cotyles are ovaloidin shape, andare separatedmedially by an inter − cotylar region with a small notochordal pit. There is no medial notch in ventral or dorsal outline. In ventral view, FGGUB v. 454 has a distinct ventral crest ( Fig. 6B View Fig 2 View Fig ), while FGGUB v. 453 ( Fig. 6A View Fig 2 View Fig ) has a low and wide ridge only. The posterior margin is damaged in all available specimens.

Sacral vertebra ( Fig. 1C View Fig ).—Only the centrum is preserved. There is a single anterior condyle and two posterior ones. Thus, the sacrococcygeal articulation is bicondylar.

Urostyle ( Fig. 6C, D View Fig ).—The two condyloid fossae are well separatedfrom each other. FGGUB v. 440 ( Fig. 6D View Fig ) has a small median tubercle. The neural canal is relatively large, while the neural crest is low. The transverse process is directed posterolaterally in FGGUB v. 441 ( Fig. 6C View Fig ), but hookedposteriorly in that of FGGUB v. 440 ( Fig. 6D View Fig 1 View Fig ).

Humerus ( Fig. 6G View Fig ).—In FGGUB v. 445 ( Fig. 6G View Fig 1 View Fig ), the humeral ball is shiftedslightly laterally andthe medial crest is more or less similarly developed by comparison with the lateral crest. In consequence the olecranon scar has a medial position. In contrary, in FGGUB V.406 ( Grigorescu et al. 1999: Fig. 3 View Fig : 5, 6) the medial crest is better developed than the lateral one, andthe olecranon scar is displacedlaterally. However, the latter condition may be related to sexual dimorphism. There is a well−developed ventral cubital fossa.

Remarks.—The morphology of the maxilla somewhat resembles that of Kizylkuma , known from the Upper Cretaceous of Uzbekistan (Roček andNessov 1993), providedwith a low postorbital section. However, specimen LU−N 6/271 (see Roček andNessov 1993: text−fig. 9J, K), versus FGGUB v. 435, has a lingually prominent posterior section of horizontal lamina. The notochordal pit, seen in the atlas of specimens FGGUB v. 453 andv. 454 is also present in Eodiscoglossus ( Evans et al. 1990; Estes andSanchíz 1982), and Leiopelma ( Worthy 1987) . A ventral crest in atlas is also present in Discoglossus and Latonia , but it is unknown in Paradiscoglossus and Wealdenbatrachus . It is noticeable that a similar atlas with the interglenoidal tubercle broken, described from the Belgian Paleocene as belonging to a salamander by Groessens−Van Dyke (1981), bears a conspicuous ventral ridge, too (Estes andSanchíz 1982). The size, morphology andthe orien − tation of transverse process in the available urostyles suggest that these may have belongedto two different forms. The mor − phology of the humerus suggests that the available specimens may represent indeterminate discoglossid frogs.